Nanotyrannus vs Tyrannosaurus

[Fullux]

Do you think its possible that nanotyrannus and tyrannosaurus could've shared a similar relationship to lions and hyenas where they would hunt at different hours to avoid competition?

 

(Lions and hyenas hunt the same prey, but lions hunt at night whereas hyenas hunt at day.)

[Tidgy's Dad]

Lions are primarily diurnal hunters, as are hyenas. They are in direct competition where lions use strength and size and hyenas their greater numbers in a clan. 

And most of the recent scientific literature still seems to lean towards Nannotyrannus being the young of Tyrannosaurus. 

 

Edited July 3, 2023 by Tidgy's Dad

[Troodon]

Interesting question.    Scientists are still debating if Tyrannosaurids especially Tyrannosaurus had a predatory or scavenging lifestyle or both.    Nanotyrannus bite force was no way near Tyrannosaurus and it's skeletal structure was a different so they had very different capabilities and hunting lifestyles.  I think both were very opportunistic hunters/scavengers and took advantage of whatever they came across night or day.  Heck, Nanotyrannus might have even been a pack hunter who knows, anything is possible

 

 

[Tidgy's Dad]

There are lots of articles on the net sugessting that Tyrannosaurus was diurnal, others saying maybe nocturnal, still more that it may have been a bit of both. 

 

[Kikokuryu]

I don't think niche partitioning has really been resolved with large theropods and I don't think the comparison with extant animals that are much much smaller is great. I'd imagine it must have been akin to whatever Gorgosaurus and Daspletosaurus were doing. But these genera aren't that vastly different from one another.

 

A large Nanotyrannus would be about the size of Gorgosaurus, maybe a bit smaller, so we are talking about a very large animal and typical sized Upper Cretaceous tyrannosaurid. The diversity of prey for large predators like this isn't particularly great in Upper Maastrichtian of North America. We have Triceratops, Torosaurus, Edmontosaurus in Hell Creek/Lance/Scollard and in the South, similar equivalents + Alamosaurus. That said, just prior to these deposits, we have Albertosaurus going solo in the Horseshoe Canyon Formation with a much larger diversity of large ornithopods and ceratopsians.

 

In Asia, there tends to be a higher diversity of tyrannosaurids coexisting during the Maastrichtian than in North America.

 

You have definitively 3 tyrannosaurs, Tarbosaurus, Alioramus, and Bagaraatan coexist in the Nemegt Formation (which I believe is lower Maastrichtian now as of 2023). Raptorex would make it a 4th, and I believe the validity has been resolved with the discovery of juvenile Tarbosaurus, but the lack of provenance and the poached nature make it confusing.

 

In the Nanxiong Formation, you have Qianzhousaurus, an undescribed large tyrannosaurid, and potentially a large non-tyrannosauroid theropod. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270875350_Large_theropod_teeth_from_the_Upper_Cretaceous_of_Jiangxi_southern_China This particular deposit is overrun with a ridiculous number of oviraptorid genera.

 

I think it's more easy to see the long-snouted tyrannosaurs like the alioramins did niche partition with their larger more robust counterparts like Tarbosaurus.

[hadrosauridae]

1 hour ago, Tidgy's Dad said:

Lions are primarily diurnal hunters, as are hyenas. They are in direct competition where lions use strength and size and hyenas their greater numbers in a clan. 

And most of the recent scientific literature still seems to lean towards Nannotyrannus being the young of Tyrannosaurus. 

 

 

I find it very humorous seeing the numbers of differing species, often classified off very small changes in morphology.  Even for the same formations you have multiple species of tyrannosaurids on other continents.... until you get to the USA and then some researchers begin screaming and pounding their fists that there can't possibly be two living together here.  Despite highly defined changes in morphology, they try to make wild excuses for why it MUST be T.rex and only T.rex.   

 

Its the definition of ego, pride and bias in research.

Edited July 3, 2023 by hadrosauridae

[Tidgy's Dad]

2 hours ago, hadrosauridae said:

 

I find it very humorous seeing the numbers of differing species, often classified off very small changes in morphology.  Even for the same formations you have multiple species of tyrannosaurids on other continents.... until you get to the USA and then some researchers begin screaming and pounding their fists that there can't possibly be two living together here.  Despite highly defined changes in morphology, they try to make wild excuses for why it MUST be T.rex and only T.rex.   

 

Its the definition of ego, pride and bias in research.

There are lumpers and splitters in just about all areas of palaeontology. I'm rather fond of brachiopods, myself, and it's the same there, some class anything that's marginally different into separate species and others try to condense them into as few as possible. I expect somewhere in the middle is neaerer the truth, though we'll never know for sure. 

If there are twenty species of tyrannosaurids in a formation in Mozambique and another twenty in an Argentinian formation ( for example, I don't say these numbers are accurate), it doesn't mean there are or aren't in a formation in the USA, There could be none or several. 

If your dinosaur researchers are actually screaming and pounding their fists that there can't possibly be two living together in the USA, then that's rather silly, but from what I have read, they have actually done some research, which is why they are called researchers, and have published papers which have been peer reviewed, showing that the two sets of fossils in question are the same species. Until the other set of researchers, who suggest the opposite, actually produce a new paper to propose the two are distinct, presumably without the pounding of fists and screaming or wild excuses, the majority of websites and institutions will continue to refer to Nanotyrannus  as "dubious, doubtful or invalid" 

Just type Nannotyranus into Google and read the first few pages. It seems to me our forum is one of the last bastions of support for this genus. 

I am not saying that it isn't valid, but I will need some good evidence in proper scientific articles to accept it, just as is the case with Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster. 

 

Edited July 3, 2023 by Tidgy's Dad

[hadrosauridae]

1 hour ago, Tidgy's Dad said:

....

Just type Nannotyranus into Google and read the first few pages. It seems to me our forum is one of the last bastions of support for this genus. 

I am not saying that it isn't valid, but I will need some good evidence in proper scientific articles to accept it, just as is the case with Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster. 

 

 

This debate has been hashed out here numerous times, and it seems silly to start anew in this thread.... but....   Without going into all the exact details and specimen numbers, etc, etc, posted previously; This forum is by far not a last bastion of 'nano holdouts'.  You can not use google results to determine if a consensus of researchers believe something, and even more to the point, a consensus means nothing.  It doesnt matter if 9 out 10 people believe the earth is flat when it is actually round.  The debate of lumping or splitting nano in the family is being muddied by "researchers" with very strong biases who refuse to acknowledge specimens, or simply claim specimens of nano are part of T.rex therefore attempting to confuse later identification into a single species. 

This is an example of how the debate is going,  "YOU"  in this is not meaning you personally. 

I show you a bone that is very different in morphology from species "A" and write a paper to name this as "B" you claim, "NO! I declare that is part of A", but that doesn't make it so.  When I show you the same bone elements from "A" and "B" , and both histologically determined to be similar in age, and they are very different in morphology, yet you say "NO! This is just an example of ontogeny", despite clear examples of juvenile "A" being a miniature version of adult "A", and clearly different from "B".  

You have to scratch your head and say "what is going on?"  In every other species found, these differences would clearly be a new species, why is THIS ONE so adamantly not considered.

Lastly... peer review does not mean a papers thesis is correct.  It only means (should mean!) that the data sets and processes used to interpret are repeatable.  If a flawed method is used, it will always lead to the same flawed result.  That is why new papers are written.... someone finds a new way to look at or interpret the data that provides a new result.

 

Lastly, you can not ignore that there are very real groups that cling to the words of their adopted mentors as if they were a gospel.  People (and I am referring to PHDs and those in PHD programs) who have never looked at a specimen, will stand on a bully pulpit of social media and literally (in electronica fashion) scream that "it must be so" simply because a friend or colleague or mentor said it. 

 

If you have read all the arguments, and looked at the data and come to your own conclusion that T and N should be part of the same species, then at least you are in that place from your own research.  If you believe a thing just because someone said it.... thats a problem.

[Tidgy's Dad]

7 minutes ago, hadrosauridae said:

 

This debate has been hashed out here numerous times

I agree. This is very tiresome. 

I have no dog in this fight and I really don't care one way or the other. Other than knowing the truth. 

But it seems to me, as with you here, that it is your side of the argument who gets aggressive and won't leave a comment alone but feel they have to scream and pound thier fists. 

It's not Google, Use any search engine you want, The concensus is it doesn't exist. The flat earth argument is an old one and is pathetic, Generally, but not always, the scientific, but not necessarily the general populace concensus, is correct, or near correct. Sensible people knew the world was a sphere, though not necessarily an oblete spheroid, a long time before the masses. don't think it's very important that a million teenage dinosaur lovers think that Nannotyranus is real and valid nor that one or two adults think it is until they can show it is. 

Google itself says little, but read the articles that the search engine brings up. Or use somethimg other than Google if you prefer. Then read a bit. 

You keep talking about strong biases; I don't care one iota, you have an agenda. 

And I can't be bothered with the rest of your response, life's short. All that bone stuff is no argument. Individuals in the same species can have all sorts of differences and morphologies. 

Your last paragraph, for example is quite ridiculous. 

Of course I haven't read 'all the arguments', there are a lot of them, even on this forum. Doubt you have. And the point is not reading articles but being able to understand them amd read between the lines and then, after careful contemplation come to your own, but not fixed, opinion. 

And as for the gospel rubbish, then yes, people follow people. On both sides, It means nothing, but there are one or two people on here who are treated as prophets and peole seem to follow blindly. 

You mention PhD's and others commenting without seeing the specimens and making an opinion. Have you seen them all in person? 

[Troodon]

17 minutes ago, Tidgy's Dad said:

I have no dog in this fight and I really don't care one way or the other. Other than knowing the truth. 

Well you really do care because you always make an issue if it...

[Tidgy's Dad]

8 hours ago, Troodon said:

Well you really do care because you always make an issue if it...

Well, as I say, it may not be a priority for me, but I always want to know the truth, or as near as is possible . 

I really think your arguments are interesting and shouldn't be ignored, but I am not convinced at this time. 

I will be absolutely happy if you are right. 

Edited July 4, 2023 by Tidgy's Dad

[Randyw]

LOL! The nano vs juvy Rex debate always reminds me of the early Rex hunter/scavenger or dinosaur feathered/ scaled or the brontosaurus/apatosaurus or the sepia/ leptauchenia oreodont debates. You all know my beliefs on the subject already so I won’t go into them here. I always think that debate is good as long as it remains civil. It encourages people to research and make up their own minds. Sooner or later one side or the other will be proved correct. Please keep it civil is all I ask. Meanwhile if anyone has any nano or tree stuff they want to give away I’ll be glad to compare them myself! LOL!

[Tidgy's Dad]

2 minutes ago, Randyw said:

LOL! The nano vs juvy Rex debate always reminds me of the early Rex hunter/scavenger or dinosaur feathered/ scaled or the brontosaurus/apatosaurus or the sepia/ leptauchenia oreodont debates. You all know my beliefs on the subject already so I won’t go into them here. I always think that debate is good as long as it remains civil. It encourages people to research and make up their own minds. Sooner or later one side or the other will be proved correct. Please keep it civil is all I ask. Meanwhile if anyone has any nano or tree stuff they want to give away I’ll be glad to compare them myself! LOL!

Absolutely. 

I think Frank is a terribly nice bloke and is about the best there is when it comes to dinosaurs.

I hope he is my freind, but I may disagree on this one point. 

Otherwise, i don't think we have a probelm. 

 

 

[hadrosauridae]

1 hour ago, Tidgy's Dad said:

I agree. This is very tiresome. 

I have no dog in this fight and I really don't care one way or the other. Other than knowing the truth. 

But it seems to me, as with you here, that it is your side of the argument who gets aggressive and won't leave a comment alone but feel they have to scream and pound thier fists. 

It's not Google, Use any search engine you want, The concensus is it doesn't exist. The flat earth argument is an old one and is pathetic, Generally, but not always, the scientific, but not necessarily the general populace concensus, is correct, or near correct. Sensible people knew the world was a sphere, though not necessarily an oblete spheroid, a long time before the masses. don't think it's very important that a million teenage dinosaur lovers think that Nannotyranus is real and valid nor that one or two adults think it is until they can show it is. 

Google itself says little, but read the articles that the search engine brings up. Or use somethimg other than Google if you prefer. Then read a bit. 

You keep talking about strong biases; I don't care one iota, you have an agenda. 

And I can't be bothered with the rest of your response, life's short. All that bone stuff is no argument. Individuals in the same species can have all sorts of differences and morphologies. 

Your last paragraph, for example is quite ridiculous. 

Of course I haven't read 'all the arguments', there are a lot of them, even on this forum. Doubt you have. And the point is not reading articles but being able to understand them amd read between the lines and then, after careful contemplation come to your own, but not fixed, opinion. 

And as for the gospel rubbish, then yes, people follow people. On both sides, It means nothing, but there are one or two people on here who are treated as prophets and peole seem to follow blindly. 

You mention PhD's and others commenting without seeing the specimens and making an opinion. Have you seen them all in person? 

 

Note your statement in red.

This is the ONLY problem I have with your post.  I make no personal attacks of assumptions of anyone.  I never claimed you leaned one way or the way.  Yet You just said that I personally have an agenda in my posts!  That sir, is absolutely absurd, and I do take an issue with you making such a claim! You can disagree with my statements of what I have learned through study, and that is fine.  Don't ever claim I am making statements with a hidden purpose!

[Tidgy's Dad]

8 hours ago, hadrosauridae said:

 

Note your statement in red.

This is the ONLY problem I have with your post.  I make no personal attacks of assumptions of anyone.  I never claimed you leaned one way or the way.  Yet You just said that I personally have an agenda in my posts!  That sir, is absolutely absurd, and I do take an issue with you making such a claim! You can disagree with my statements of what I have learned through study, and that is fine.  Don't ever claim I am making statements with a hidden purpose!

You are correct and I apologize for that part of my statement. 

Though I was not suggesting you had a hidden purpose. Whether you have an agenda or not, your opinion is quite clear. 

What hidden purpose could you possibly have? 

Your claim about this is equally unfair and is a personal attack. 

[Troodon]

11 hours ago, Tidgy's Dad said:

think Frank is a terribly nice bloke and is about the best there is when it comes to dinosaurs.

I hope he is my freind, but I may disagree on this one point. 

Otherwise, i don't think we have a probelm. 

 

Like I said in another topic you seem to be very selective in who you disagree with and the topics you choose to address

[Tidgy's Dad]

Just now, Troodon said:

Like I said in another topic you seem to be very selective in who you disagree with and the topics you choose to address

Well, of course! 

I agree with you, or at least don't know enough to comment, in most instances, but this one I think should be open to debate. 

Not saying you are wrong, but we should acknowledge the other perspective. 

[Kane]

Bringing this back to the foot of the original question's circle, it may be a tall order to verify when certain dinosaurs did their meal runs. Certainly, time of day/night is one of possibly several factors and strategies in trying to get an edge on a rival competitor species. 

[JohnJ]

Spirited, but not heated, debate is welcome.  Critical disagreement with another's rationale is useful in learning.  However, personal characterizations should be set aside.  When your position is clear, I think agreeing to disagree, on an individual basis, is best.  

 

Any other concerns can be taken up with a member of the staff via PM.

[Fossildude19]

Topic is now locked.

 

The question posed by the OP was posed assuming that Nanotyrannus and Tyrannosaurus were separate genii.

 

He was asking about behavior, and not for a debate about whether or not they are different animals. I believe the behavioral question  can't  really be answered.